Aim120 can be trashed with a barrel roll and chaff headon

[Xhonas]

7 minutes ago, skywalker22 said:

Just evaded 3 missiles with a barrel roll (online on GS server), 4th one got me, because I wasn't expectinmg it and wasn't pulling Gs anymore, for a test:

I know, that was never my intention, but if amramm is shot from 15nm from you at cca 20k feet is not considered as max range.

20nm at 20k feet is very, VERY far. You don't even need to barrell roll, you can do a simple crank to defeat it. 

[skywalker22]

ok, did as you said, coming into no escape zone, 2 successful maneuvers (and 1 not successful). Good enough? Have to try other missiles as well.

 

Tacview-20250105-aim120_3.zip.acmi Tacview-20250105-aim120_2.zip.acmi

and @Xhonas I said 15nm, which is far different then 20nm. But ok, its still out side of MAR.

[Xhonas]

3 minutes ago, skywalker22 said:

ok, did as you said, coming into no escape zone, 2 successful maneuvers (and 1 not successful). Good enough? Have to try other missiles as well.

 

Tacview-20250105-aim120_3.zip.acmi 55.85 kB · 1 download Tacview-20250105-aim120_2.zip.acmi 54.56 kB · 1 download

and @Xhonas I said 15nm, which is far different then 20nm. But ok, its still out side of MAR.

Sorry, but 15nm is still far away a hard crank can defeat it without trouble. 

For the 2nd test, yeah, it is the problem we are talking about and waiting for months for ED to fix. The other missiles don't fall for this maneuver at this range. 

[skywalker22]

aim7m also lost track (3 times in a row).

Tacview-20250105-aim7_2.zip.acmi Tacview-20250105-aim7_3.zip.acmi Tacview-20250105-aim7_4.zip.acmi

R-77 and PL-10 are fine, can't evade them with a barrel roll.

[Hobel]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb skywalker22:

aim7m also lost track (3 times in a row).

Tacview-20250105-aim7_2.zip.acmi 50.33 kB · 0 Downloads Tacview-20250105-aim7_3.zip.acmi 57.36 kB · 0 Downloads Tacview-20250105-aim7_4.zip.acmi 35.99 kB · 0 Downloads

R-77 and PL-10 are fine, can't evade them with a barrel roll.

I haven't seen the tracks yet but from the comments and pictures.

You have to compare the same energy level.

The Aim120 still flies past the target easily with 2-3mach test and compare this. A 27ER,SD10 or R77 hit with such an energy state.

[Zergburger]

On 11/1/2024 at 12:41 AM, Маэстро said:

As you said if this is correct... Look, it's absolutlely unclear what they mean by kill radius. What type of target and Pk corresponds to that radius? There is AIM-54 with 60kg(!) warhead and the same 15m kill radius. Do you think aim-120 warhead (BTW which one exactly? wdu-33 or wdu-41?) can provide the same Pk at 15m distance as aim-54 one?

Has the idea that the AIM-54 was designed to kill large bombers and large supersonic cruise missiles, whilst the amraam was designed to kill fighters and other small to medium sized air breathing targets been considered. To explain further, could it be possible that the 15m kill radius is correct for both, with respect to their differing use cases. I think that there is some decent evidence to suggest aim-120 proximity fuzed (could) be lethal to fighters at 15m.

The same logic was used when determining the size of aircraft gun armament. In times of old when aircraft were small, the guns that were used to destroy them were small.Whilst cannons were used on bombers. Now we have fighters that are the size of WW2 bombers, and as such, the machine guns of old have given way to cannons, most of them 25mm to 30mm.


However as a separate issue, i believe modern proximity fuses do not use simple logic in determining detonation criteria. If I were to design a missile proximity fuze system, i would certainly create a logic gate that would take multiple reading over time and if the range to target continues to decrease, there would be no reason to detonate. Once the initial firing circuit is tripped the missile should detonate only when closure falls under a certain rate. This simple logic gating would allow a fairly generous range for initial proximity fusing, whilst still maintaining lethality that a shorter range could afford. My understanding is that the sidewinder was upgraded to an active laser proximity fuse to employ this very concept

Is there any reason why the amraam, with all its ADVANCED-ness would not have this feature?

@Default774 Might have something to say in regards to this point methinks.

Edited January 7 by Zergburger

[Chizh]

В 25.12.2024 в 02:07, Xhonas сказал:

Hello there, problem persists in the latest patch.

 

barrel roll asd1.trk 1.22 \u041c\u0411 · 7 загрузок barrel roll asd2.trk 322.5 \u043a\u0411 · 5 загрузок

I don't see a problem. You're doing a heavy anti-missile maneuver with G loading 10g. It's a very effective maneuver in reality.

Please read this

Maneuverable counteraction to missiles EN.pdf

[Xhonas]

11 minutes ago, Chizh said:

I don't see a problem. You're doing a heavy anti-missile maneuver with G loading 10g. It's a very effective maneuver in reality.

Uh... at this point i'm reading this as a little bit of sarcasm.. english is not my main language tho. Let's check some stuff in here: 

Here is an SD-10 missile, similar class to the aim-120, according to dev's it is working on the same API. Despite the miss distance, the missile is able to proxy fuze and shoot me down.

sd10 trk1.trk

Here is the Aim-120, in the exact same situation. The missile misses. 

aim120 trk1.trk

Is the Aim-120 being hindered on purpose? Why can't you simply tweak the proximity fuze to get rid of this problem? 

[Chizh]

18 минут назад, Xhonas сказал:

Uh... at this point i'm reading this as a little bit of sarcasm.. english is not my main language tho. Let's check some stuff in here: 

Here is an SD-10 missile, similar class to the aim-120, according to dev's it is working on the same API. Despite the miss distance, the missile is able to proxy fuze and shoot me down.

The SD-10 missile was made by a Chinese team on an outdated model. It does not use all the new developments of the component model, which is presented in AMRAAM. The same applies to the R-77. It still needs to be improved.

 

18 минут назад, Xhonas сказал:

Is the Aim-120 being hindered on purpose? Why can't you simply tweak the proximity fuze to get rid of this problem? 

There is nothing ideal in the world. And there are no ideal missiles that can hit any target. Each system has its limitations. Including speed and maneuverability. That is why anti-missile maneuvers exist, which allow aircraft to avoid being hit. Read the document I posted. This is a fragment of the real document for fighter pilots.

Most Air-to-Air missiles are designed to hit targets with g-load up to 9g. Only modern close-combat missiles are designed for a higher target g-load, up to 12g.
Your g-load in tracks was about 10g.

[Chizh]

 

18 минут назад, Xhonas сказал:

Here is the Aim-120, in the exact same situation. The missile misses. 

aim120 trk1.trk 103.22 \u043a\u0411 · 0 загрузок

In this track you were hit by 120.

[Xhonas]

16 minutes ago, Chizh said:

The SD-10 missile was made by a Chinese team on an outdated model. It does not use all the new developments of the component model, which is presented in AMRAAM. The same applies to the R-77. It still needs to be improved.

Watching the in game trackfile the only visible difference is that the SD-10 triggers the proxy fuze further away. If it had the same proxy fuze distance of the Amraam it would miss like the Amraam does now. Editing the game files to give the Amraam a proxy fuze distance like the SD-10 fixes the problem. 

 

I'm aware of the maneuver described, but the Amraam is a very sophisticated missile and the missile was fired inside the NEZ. If the defensive maneuver was performed vs a missile launched further away, sure, it is indeed very effective, and it works against every missile in DCS, but only works inside the NEZ vs the Amraam. Even SME's find this super innacurate. Well that is it then. 

7 minutes ago, Chizh said:

 

In this track you were hit by 120.

Not really, must be a trackfile issue, they have been unstable for a while now. Tacview of this trackfile, miss distance is within 50 feet. A higher proxy fuze radius could've guaranteed a hit in this situation.

Tacview-20250110-115246-DCS.zip.acmi

Edited January 10 by Xhonas

[Chizh]

5 минут назад, Xhonas сказал:

Watching the in game trackfile the only visible difference is that the SD-10 triggers the proxy fuze further away. If it had the same proxy fuze distance of the Amraam it would miss like the Amraam does now. Editing the game files to give the Amraam a proxy fuze distance like the SD-10 fixes the problem. 

I don't know what the range of SD-10 the proxy fuse in reality. I want and will not answer for it. Ask Deka please.

5 минут назад, Xhonas сказал:

 

I'm aware of the maneuver described, but the Amraam is a very sophisticated missile and the missile was fired inside the NEZ. If the defensive maneuver was performed vs a missile launched further away, sure, it is indeed very effective, and it works against every missile in DCS, but only works inside the NEZ vs the Amraam. Even SME's find this super innacurate. Well that is it then. 

We also have SME. Moreover, I gave you a text in which this maneuver is clearly described as the most effective against all types of missiles. Therefore, I believe that we have done everything correctly here.

Once again. You exceeded the missile's maneuver capabilities. Medium-range missiles are not designed for targets maneuvering at 10g.

 

[Default774]

On 1/7/2025 at 5:40 AM, Zergburger said:

However as a separate issue, i believe modern proximity fuses do not use simple logic in determining detonation criteria. If I were to design a missile proximity fuze system, i would certainly create a logic gate that would take multiple reading over time and if the range to target continues to decrease, there would be no reason to detonate. Once the initial firing circuit is tripped the missile should detonate only when closure falls under a certain rate. This simple logic gating would allow a fairly generous range for initial proximity fusing, whilst still maintaining lethality that a shorter range could afford. My understanding is that the sidewinder was upgraded to an active laser proximity fuse to employ this very concept

The current implementation of proximity fuzes where the missile will only ever detonate when it hits a (seemingly arbitrary) range seems dubious to me and is highly detrimental to the effectiveness of the missile, especially in this scenario where most misses due to barrel rolling are near misses where the missile just barely doesn't hit the magic 9 meters. The concept of missiles only ever being to detonate at exactly the range at which it has a 100% Pk and never any closer or further away than that seems weird to me. The AIM-120 has a secondary contact fuze, is that really PURELY a backup for if the proximity fuze fails to trigger?

In my opinion, a simple zero or negative closure == detonate, even if we didn't hit the 9m magic number, would go a very long way preventing the missile from being cheesed this way. But if ED does not want to do this for whatever reason then that ends that discussion unfortunately.

Edited January 10 by Default774

[DoorMouse]

Chizh, the missiles have been on different models for a long while. Is there any expectation when everything will be on consistent model?

 

[Chizh]

2 часа назад, DoorMouse сказал:

Chizh, the missiles have been on different models for a long while. Is there any expectation when everything will be on consistent model?

 

I will not give any deadlines. Developing weapons with a lack of information is a very complex and non-trivial task. I hope for understanding.

[MA_VMF]

В 10.01.2025 в 18:55, Default774 сказал:

In my opinion, a simple zero or negative closure == detonate, even if we didn't hit the 9m magic number, would go a very long way preventing the missile from being cheesed this way. But if ED does not want to do this for whatever reason then that ends that discussion unfortunately.

The range of the fuse is calculated based on the mass of the warhead

[Hobel]

vor 57 Minuten schrieb MA_VMF:

The range of the fuse is calculated based on the mass of the warhead

Aim120(~22kg Warhead) and Aim9(~9kg) have both 9m because?

 

Am 10.1.2025 um 16:31 schrieb Chizh:

Once again. You exceeded the missile's maneuver capabilities. Medium-range missiles are not designed for targets maneuvering at 10g.

But with all due respect, it's no longer about maneuverability. Маэстро has already explained to us why the missile behaves the way it does, and that's fine.

Hence the question about the PF to compensate for this weakness.
The Aim120 can be rolled out head-on every time even though the missile is 2-3M fast at the moment of passing.
in addition, there are some pilot reports who were hit by Aim120 and sometimes could only land with minor damage an indication that the PF range was greater hence the minor damage? in DCS it is 99% of the cases always a total destruction of the aircraft

 

 

 

Edited January 11 by Hobel

[MA_VMF]

26 минут назад, Hobel сказал:

Aim120(~22kg Warhead) and Aim9(~9kg) have both 9m because?

It's hard to believe in 9m from AiM-9. It may work at 9m, but the affected area will be only 4m. And there is no point in these 9m

[Hobel]

vor 17 Minuten schrieb MA_VMF:

It's hard to believe in 9m from AiM-9. It may work at 9m, but the affected area will be only 4m. And there is no point in these 9m

It is stated in many public documents that the PF triggers at 9m

if you search you will find a lot about Aim9.
It may not always be lethal at 9m but  any damage no matter how small is welcome , hence the confusion as to why the value is the same for a double weight warhead.

Edited January 11 by Hobel

[speed-of-heat]

5 minutes ago, Hobel said:

It is stated in many public documents that the PF triggers at 9m

if you search you will find a lot about Aim9.
It may not always be lethal at 9m but  any damage no matter how small is welcome , hence the confusion as to why the value is the same for a double weight warhead.

So doesn’t it follow that if the burst radius is proportional to the warhead size shouldn’t the aim120 be bigger than the aim9

[MA_VMF]

6 минут назад, Hobel сказал:

It is stated in many public documents that the PF triggers at 9m

if you search you will find a lot about Aim9.
It may not always be lethal at 9m but any damage no matter how small is welcome , hence the confusion as to why the value is the same for a double weight warhead.

The confusion is that the AiM-120 has a possible calculated value. Namely, the radius of guaranteed defeat

[rob10]

8 minutes ago, speed-of-heat said:

So doesn’t it follow that if the burst radius is proportional to the warhead size shouldn’t the aim120 be bigger than the aim9

Maybe, but it's probably not that simple.  This is way over my head, but the explosive speed of the Aim-120 might be slower (no idea if they're using the same explosive, just playing devil's advocate) explosive to get a higher warhead power with less weight or something, so exploding at the same time/distance one might hit the aircraft, but the other might not push the fragments to the target fast enough to hit the target from the same distance.  Just pointing out that (while I'm a fan) "common sense" doesn't always match up with reality.

[speed-of-heat]

Typically… you wouldn’t put a smaller slower explosive on a faster weapon… but then we are both speculating… what was said was that the range of the fuze is based on the size of the warhead and then a size of 30ft was given for a warhead of a smaller size… and that represents an inconsistency…

[rob10]

6 minutes ago, speed-of-heat said:

Typically… you wouldn’t put a smaller slower explosive on a faster weapon… but then we are both speculating…

Yes, but my speculation was that in order to get a low enough weight to meet that requirement the tradeoff might be a slower explosive.  Faster doesn't necessarily mean more powerful, so you might be able to get BIGGER explosive charge from a SLOWER exploding material.  But yes, this is hypothetical speculation on my part.

[speed-of-heat]

It’s a heavier warhead almost double the weight of an aim9 according to public sources.  So given the formula is proportional based upon the mass of the warhead, the fuzzing distance should be bigger… if they both arrive at the same number (9m/30ft) one based upon public source material, the other upon calculation then that is inconsistent.